Apostle's authority and order 1 Cor. 5.3 4 5. to be delivered unto Satan by being excommunicated out of the Church for the destruction of the flesh that Satan having him in his power might torment his body with diseases and pains For such a power as this the Apostles had whereby they were more especially enabled to convict Heretics of Imposture who pretending to Miracles as well as the Apostles it was not easy for the common People to see which were in the right unless something extraordinary appeared on the one side more than the other And in this case nothing could be so proper as that power of inflicting punishments upon the very persons of the Wonder-workers They might equal the Apostles themselves in their pretences to Inspirations to Mystery and Knowledge Their Tricks and Conjurations might perhaps seem as strange to the common People as any true Miracles But when the Apostles inflicted miraculous punishments and yet they could neither save nor avenge themselves by all their power it would be plain enough to every one who it was that acted by the power of God and consequently which side were in the right and which Cheats and Impostors Thus St. Paul threatens the elated Gnostics to know their power 1 Cor. 4.19 For the kingdom of God is not in word but in power i. e. it will not be so easy for you to judge by disputations c. who are the orthodox members of God's Church as by these more evident demonstrations of power which make the case plain to every man And yet the Apostle was always tender how he used those rigorous methods this power being given for edification and not for destruction 2 Cor. 13.10 it was only to be exerted upon the most notorious and incorrigible Offenders And this is the reason why we meet with so few instances of it and why the Apostle leaves it to their choice how he should deal with them What will ye shall I come unto you with a rod or in love and in the spirit of meekness 1 Cor. 4.21 And this power seems to be appropriate to the Apostles and their Successors the Bishops of that early Age For why else does the Apostle in the case of the incestuous Corinthian affirm himself to be present in spirit at the meeting of the inferior Ministers of the Church When ye are gathered together 1 Cor. 5.3 4 5. What matter whether the Apostle were present any way or not if his presence were no way necessary why should his spirit with the power of Christ be so emphatically mentioned ver 4. if the Assembly had that power of Christ so as to do it without him perhaps one reason might be because the Corinthian was a Doctor And we find the same authority over persons of that degree appropriated to the succeeding Bishops So Timothy might bestow the marks of Honour and likewise receive Accusations against an Elder and rebuke them that sinned before all so as to terrify others 1 Tim. 5.17 19 20. Titus was to rebuke sharply the Gnostic Prophets those who bore the like character in the Christian Church to that of Epimenides among the Heathen i. e. were Priests and Diviners to stop their mouths which was surely to silence them Tit. 1.11 12 13. So that the Apostles and Bishops who succeeded them in Authority had power to silence the schismatical Teachers which is all we contend for But neither they nor we are for silencing those Ministers that being duly ordain'd are sound and orthodox according to Mr. H's Supposition and whether he and his Vindicator belong to the former or the latter sort we are willing at any time to stand a fair Tryal As for his instance of Apollos it will do him but little service if Antiquity is to be credited which makes this very Apollos the first Bishop of Corinth and it is to be noted that there were Teachers and Ministers before and therefore if Apollos was the first Bishop he was of another Order And their boasted Father St. Jerome expresly tells us that upon this very Schism of the Corinthians * Hiâ—…ron in Comment ad Tiâ—…um In toto orbe decretum est ut unus de Presbyteris electus superponeretur caeteris ad quem omnis ecclesiae cura pertineret Schismatum semina tollerentur Not that there was no Episcopal Authority before this time it was lodged in the Apostles till now and this was the first time they communicated it to any other person With the like ingenuity Mr. H. expounds the second place in this Epistle where he finds the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 telling us First That it could not be meant of breach of Communion because they all came together into one place v. 20. Secondly That the Schisms were Quarrels and Contentions about some little things relating to the circumstances of public worship Thirdly That the quarrel seems to be obout the time of beginning their worship in every of which conjectures Mr. H. is grosly mistaken and seems not to have understood St. Paul's meaning as will appear if we consider First That altho it is true as I noted before that Schismatics did not as yet hold any separate Conventicles yet there was a most notorious breach of communion even at the Communion-Table and their miscarriages were so great and of such a kind as were scarcely reconcileable with the nature of a Sacramental Feast Insomuch that the Apostle tells 'em v. 20. When ye come together into one place This is not to eat the Lord's Supper and the reason was because they did not communicate one with another For in eating every one taketh before other his own Supper and one is hungry and another is drunken i. e. The rich who contributed more plentifully to the common feast did not suffer the poor to be sharers with them but snatcht up their own oblation and eat and drank it themselves So that those who by reason of their poverty brought little or nothing went away hungry and ashamed v. 21 22. Now this was so much a breach of communion that according to this practice there was really no communion at all The rich lookt upon what they brought as their own Supper to which no man else had any right and for this reason were so hasty to eat it up themselves that the poor had nothing So that while one party had nothing to eat and the rest ate every man his own without communicating one with another there was so great a violation of the designed communion that really they made it no communion at all And yet I can find no quarrels or contentions among them The rich who fed so plentifully had no reason to quarrel for they had their full share even to excess And altho the poor had really a just cause of complaint yet perhaps because they brought nothing they thought it not seemly to mutiny All the Apostle mentions concerning their behaviour is that they were hungry v. 21. and as
many other Apostolical Churches were the same The Churches of Rome and Corinth and most others were made out of Jews and Gentiles who had the same different apprehensions about Jewish Ceremonies as well as that at Jerusalem And therefore the difference was not betwixt Church and Church but betwixt the Members of the same Churches who were left at liberty by the Apostolical Synod except in three things And for that Reason the Gentile Dissenters cannot possibly be the Patrons of ours unless the Vindicator can shew that the Jewish Ceremonies were impos'd as ours are by some Christian Church If he can prove that Rules were given and Matters of Decence impos'd and that any Christians in that Age refus'd to submit to 'em let him name 'em as the Precedents of his Cause and Party I dare say That every Churchman will allow 'em to be so In the next Paragraph he is fond of the Notion which he quarrell'd with in the last so inconstant are those people that know not what they would have It fits the Independents as exactly as if it had been made for 'em for they hold a Vnity for Substance tho not for Circumstances they are united to all true Churches tho for condemning Bishops who are doubtless the principal and most necessary Members they partake of the same Table tho they set up Altar against Altar they are the same with us in the External Worship and Service of God tho in Covenant against us and they refuse to communicate with us either in Sacraments or Prayers They are all united to the Head tho not into one Body either among themselves or with others For that part of Unity I observe the Gent. passes over and with a great deal of Reason it being hard to find several Members united into One Body and yet still remaining all independent That wherein they differ from others is according to the Apostolical Mode That wherein others differ from them is nothing but Innovation Otherwise they are the same with all true Churches if you will believe this Gent. To all which I shall only apply and argue in the plain words of St. John 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They went out from us but they were not of us for if they had been of us they would no doubt have continued with us but they went out that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us 1 John 2 1â—… Touching the Continuance of the Church he agrees with us p. 17. Only about the Authority of the Apostles he is pleas'd to fall out not apprehending how any Man can succeed the Apostles in their Apostolical Power If he means the Authority they had in the Church i. e. over the Presbyters and other Members we affirm Bishops to be their Succ ssors it being not reasonable to suppose that any Branch of Auth rity given by our Saviour to his Apostles died with them for if their Authority over the Presbyters expir'd with their Persons why should that over the People continue after 'em unless the Gentleman will suppose which I suppose he will not that the Laity are the only persons that need the Regulation of Superiours All Multitudes must have Governours and the common Presbyters are certainly oo Numerou a Populace to be all independent Let 'em submit therefore to Bishops their Successors as they did to the Apostles themselves especially till such times as you can find a Text to prove That the Apostles Commission was only a Patent for Life it being a Matter of such Consequence in the Vniversal Church that few will believe you upon your own bare Word As the Authority of the Apostles was Vniversal and extended to the whole World and was the same in all Churches p. 18. so Bishops do succeed them in the same Authority And if it were not for those Humane Agreements which the Vindicator cannot disallow the Government Ecclesiastical must be so exercised And I could wish the Gentleman would be pleas'd to consider whether a Bishop is not as truly a Bishop and a Presbyter as much a Presbyter in any other Man's Diocess or Parish as he is in his own Is he suspended or deprived when he 's out of his own bounds If not I hope he may be a Minister like the Apostles all the World over And yet the exercise of his Ministry confin'd within certain limits Nor do's this Notion give the Pope any greater power in England than it do's the Archbishop of Canterbury at Rome which is none at all On the contrary if Ordinary Pastors are Pastors only within their own Precincts Mr. H. and his Vindicator tho Ordain'd can be none because they exercise their pretended Ministry in other Mens Parishes He will not dispute the Episcopal Jurisdiction of Timothy and Titus but he tells us it signifies nothing till the nature and extent of that Office be first determin'd out of Scripture p. 18. As if the Epistles to Timothy and Titus were no Scripture We find Timothy appointed by St. Paul to examine the Qualifications of such as were to be Ordain'd to lay hands suddenly on no Man to receive Accusations and proceed judicially and to rebuke before all even Elders themselves if there were occasion Titus was to ordain Elders in every City to set things in order to rebuke with all authority to admonish and reject heretics And this power of Ordination and Jurisdiction wherewith Timothy and Titus were invested is what the Bishops have all along exercised and do still challenge at this day and therefore we justify the present Episcopal Authority by these two Scripture-Instances And as the Congregational Invention allows of no such Officers the most Ordinary Pastors call 'em Bishops or Presbyters or what you will being all independent without ever a Timothy or Titus to supervise and govern 'em by the same Scripture it stands condemn'd and is plainly contrary to the Apostolical Pattern And if the Office of Timothy and Titus was itinerant by reason of their frequent Removes from place to place as the Gent. supposes p. 19. our Bishops are extreamly like 'em in that particular their Office being always very itinerant in their Episcopal Visitations But this is an idle Fancy which he probably learn'd from Mr. Baxter an idle one I call it for if the Office of Timothy and Titus was really itinerant they were certainly out of their Office while they staid at home the one in Ephesus and the other in Crete tho doing that very business for which the Apostles plac'd 'em there which how well it agrees with Scripture and common Sence let every discerning Reader judge If none besides St. Paul were concern'd in the Ordination of Timothy and Titus Sed quod ab uno Apostolo gestum est id ab omnibus simul Apostolis gestum esse dicitur ob Collegium Consortium Apostolatus Vales Annot. in Philosâ—…org H. E. l. 3. c. 15. Sub imperatore Claudio loco duorum unicus Praefectus Praetorio Constitutus
est Burrhus Afranius Sub Nerone Burrho mortuo duo praefecti praetorio constituti suâ—…t ut unius successores Pears de success Diss 1. C.IX. ubi plura in hujus argumenti fidem allata legas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Jos l. 11. c. ult Augustus Constantinus in suburbana villa Nicomediâ—… tricessimo primo Imperii sui anno diem functus est liberis de successione 〈◊〉 Orbis testamento Haeredibus scriptis Ruffin H. E. l. 1. c. 11. it surely justifies the present Ordinations by a single Bishop but if others joyn'd with him in Imposition of Hands as the Gent. supposes in the following p. T. W. was not much out several of the Primitive Bishops being Styl'd Apostles by the Ancients as well as the Twelve And therefore before he had condemn'd T.W. he ought to have told us who those were that laid on hands with St. Paul and to demonstrate 'em Unworthy of that Title But it is sufficient to justifie T. W. that what is done only by one has been commonly said to be done by the Apostles by reason of their being Colleagues and Partners in the same Apostleship I dare answer for T. W. That this Man's Notion of a proper Succession never enter'd into his head No Man besides Blondel and his quarrelsome Brethren ever reckoning it improper to call Two persons the Successors of One when really they are so When Two Persons are Heirs to One in the same Estate or succeed him in his Authority they are call'd by Civilians and I believe not improperly Haeredes or Successores partiarii When the Roman Empire became divided I would fain know whether Constantine the Great and Jovian c. had no Successors And I hope the Gent. will allow Their Majesties K. W. and Q. M. to be call'd the Successors of K. J. without any great Absurdity And as there are Instances enough to be given of Two Persons succeeding One in his Secular Estate and Authority so I know no Reason why Two Bishops may not as well succeed One Apostle in the Ecclesiastical The larger the Apostles Province was the more Divisions it was capable of and consequently the more Successors he might have Timothy might succeed him at Ephesus Titus in Crete c. Nor does this succeeding of the Apostle in these Two Provinces give 'em an equal Power in one another's Diocesses as the Vindicator supposes p. 19. any more than the King of Spain has Power at Rome or Constantinople because the Roman Emperors are number'd amongst his Predecessors by Franciscus Taraphâ—… and other Spanish Historians Nor is there any necessity to suppose as the Gent. would insinuate that the Apostle must either be suspended or degraded or translated to an higher Seat to make room for the Succession of Timothy and Titus in the Sees of Ephesus and Crete For it is evident the Apostle himseâ—…f gave them a Plenitude of Power within their respective Charges chuse how much or how little he reserv'd to himself So that they had the full Ordering and Government of those Two Churches and did therefore succeed the Apostle in it even while he was alive But if the Vindicator will needs call 'em the Apostle's Coadjutors while he was alive and give 'em the Title of Successors only after his Decease I know T. W. will not quarrel with him it being no way contrary to any thing he hath said In the mean time I must desire him to forbear making wry Faces If any one shall still assert That St. Paul Ordain'd his Successors at Ephesus and Crete for as it is impossible that the Apostle should have any Successors unless ordain'd by themselves nor very probable that they ordain'd 'em when they were dead So according to the Opinion of the Ancients and common Sense they are said by T. W. to ordain 'em while they were alive Thus Irenaeus Iren. adv Haeres l. 3. c. 3. Ab Apostolis instituti sunt Episcopi quos Successores relinquebant suum ipsorum locum Magisterii tradentes And a little after speaking concerning the Bishops of the Church of Rome Fundantes igitur instruentes beati Apostoli Ecclesiam Lino Episcopatum administrandae Ecclesiae tradiderunt From which Two Passages it is plain That the Apostles ordain'd Bishops their Successors while they were alive and that Linus a single Person succeeded the Apostles in the plural which is the double blunder in express terms wherewith our nimble-sighted Author charges T.W. p. 20. Nor will Tertullion easily free himself from our Author's Censure if he ever hears of that Passage de Praescript c. 32. Evolvant Ordinem Episcoporum suorum ita per Successiones ad initia decurrentem ut primus ille Episcopus aliquem ex Apostolis vel Apostolicis viris qui tamen cum Apostolis perseveraverit habuerit Autotem Antecessorem Hoc enim modo Ecclesiae Apostolicae census sâ—…os deferunt sicut Smyrnaeorum Ecclesia Polycarpum à Joanne Collocatum sicut Romanorum Clementem à Petro ordinatum itidem perinde utique caeterae exhibent quos ab Apostolis in Episcopatum Constitutos Apostolici Seminis traduces habeant So that according to Tertullian 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Con. Antioch c. 23. the Apostles ordain'd the first Bishops in each Church and were their Predecessors and they the Apostles Successors Nor was it ever thought so great a Mystery by Men of Sence either in Ancient or Latter Ages for a Bishop or other Person to ordain or constitute his Successor as this Man makes it The Council of Antioch deâ—…rees it Unlawful for a Bishop to constitute his Successor But if according to the Opinion of our Author they had thought it a thing impossible they would certainly have spar'd their Paiâ—…s it being not very usual for Wise Men to make Laws against Impossibilities Valerius ordained St. Augustine his Successor and he Heraclius Augustine of Canterbury ordained Laurentius to succeed him in that See according to Bede Bedae Ec. Hist. l. 2. c. 40. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. Haer. 20. who says he did it after the Example of St. Peter who is said to have consecrated Clemens evangelizandi adjutorem simul Successorem And Epiphanius gives the Reason why other Persons were made Bishops in the Life-time of St. Peter and St. Paul even because the Apostles did frequently travel into other Countries to preach the Gospel and the City of Rome could not be without a Bishop To which I might add That Severus Bishop of Milevis and Boniface Archbishop of Mentz did after the Example of the Apostles ordain Persons to succeed 'em in those Sees And now surely nothing but that Faculty of Ignorance if there be such a Faculty wherewith he reproaches T. W. p. 21. cou'd have embolden'd this Vindicator to charge a Man with Nonsence and Blunder for asserting plain Matter of Fact when there are so many Instances to be found of the same Nature according to the Sence and Practice of several Ages I fancy few
for it But in some Greek Copies the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are left out So that upon the whole matter the Eastern Churches have no quarrel against either of those * Combefis ad Man Calec not 59. Creeds All their contention with the Western in this case is about the true Reading of them †Symbolum fidei quod ipsi profitentur idem est atque illud quod Latini in Missa recitant Differunt in eo à Latinis quod ipsi de Spir. Sancto dicunt qui ex Patre procedit Latini qui ex Patre filioque procedit id cum Graeci non negent idem cum Latinis dicere existimandi sunt Leo All. de Cons l. 3. c. 10. Sect. 1. And therefore unless he had been more particular about that this first Branch of T. W's description may stand and yet neither the Greek or any Eastern Church be excluded Secondly To partake of the same Table 't is true T. W. did not mean the same individual Table as the Gentleman rightly supposes and yet he meant somthing more than barely the same Eucharist in Specie Hereticks and Schismaticks may deliver the same Eucharist in Specie and yet he that Communicates with either is not thereby in the Communion of the Saints Thirdly To joyn all in the same Holy Prayers and Supplications and giving of Thanks T. W. does not hereby Excommunicate all the rest of the World For although the Forms of Holy Prayer c. are different in several Countreys yet people joyning with the Church where they live in its Holy Devotions do answer this Branch of the Description and those Christians who refuse and separate from them are certainly Schismaticks Fourthly To be Subject and Obedient to our Spiritual Rulers and Governors who have derived their Authority from the Apostles by a due Succession in all things pertaining to godly Life Decency and Order He cannot except against this They are desirous to give due Honour and Obedience to their Spiritual Governors who derive their Authority from Christ but still he endeavours to justifie their Separation upon two accounts Vind. p. 32. First Because he thinks the Bishop ought not to Govern so many Congregations nor by such Rules and Officers as they do Neither Secondly By the nomination of the Civil Magistrate without the consent of the People or the Ministers within the Diocess and while he does so he is a Creature not to be found either in Scripture or in the Primitive Times and therefore can be no Spiritual Governor of theirs by Divine Right As to the Government of so many Congregations we think it not Essential to the Office of a Bishop It being not the greatness of the City he lives in or the extent of his Diocess or the Number of Congregations but the Ordination that makes him a Bishop We acknowledg with St. Ep. ad Evagr. Jerome that the poor Bishop of Eugubium had the same Order and Authority with him of Rome and that he of Tanis was equal in that respect to him of Alexandria Soz. l. 2. c. 14. and that Milles the Martyr in Sozomen who had never a Christian within his Diocess Ibid. l. 7. c. 19. was as truly a Bishop as he who had all Scythia under his care On the other hand to persuade us that the great Extent of a Bishops Diocess does make void his Office will be a task I am afraid too difficult for our Author to manage We have no such Doctrine in Sc ipture And this conceit as it is beyond the malice so it is below the Sence of all Hereticks and Schismaticks in former Times And if it were true the Apostles themselves must have been the greatest Usurpers They having a larger extent of Jurisdiction even according to this Author than any of their Successors But this Argument has been so Copiously and so lately managed by Doctor Maurice in his Learned Defence of Diocesan Episcopacy that I shall only need to refer the Reader thither Secondly As for the Officers used by our English Prelacy we think them such as are extreamly useful in order to the more regular and easy management of the Episcopal Charge The Chancellor is a Person well learned in the Canon and Civil Laws and consequently able to judg or assist the Bishop in his Judicial Proceedings Nor is it any great exception against him in my Opinion that he is a Layman while there is no Necessity for him Personally to perform any of those things which belong only to the Clergy Lyndew de Constit q. incontin Dec. Rural vid plura de judiciis c. 1. Dec. Rural The Dean Rural is a Temporary Officer under the Archbishop or Bishop ad aliquod ministerium exeâ—…cendum Constitutus Cujus Officium est in Causis ecclesiasticis citationes ei transmissas exequi cujus sigillum in talibus erit auctenticum The Rules they go by are the Canon and Civil Laws where the Laws and Canons of our own Kingdom have not expresly directed The Authority they have is from the Bishop and the Law So that he who disobeys them in the just and legal Exercise of their Authority disobeys both How Sacred and Certain that Authority is I wish these Gentlemen may consider And if it were purely a matter of Choice yet methinks Church-Affairs are more likely to be well manag'd under our English Prelacy by such Officers and Rulers than after the Independent Fashion by the Sudden and Arbitrary Determination of every Mean and Ordinary Pastâ—…r perhaps in a Consistory of Clowns who must Pole for that Truth and Equity which they do not understand And if either the Pastor or any body else happens to be wiser than the rest so as to judge right have Power to over-rule his Sence and Arguments either by Votes or Tumult Neither Thirdly Do we think the Consent of the People or of the Ministers of the Diocess Essential to thâ—… Office of a Bishop Our Saviour Constituted his Apostles without it We have no Command in Scripture for any such Consent The Practice of the Primitive Times was various and therefore we think it a Matter left wholly to the Discretion of the Church Matthias and Justus seem to be appointed by the People as well as the Apostles Acts 1.15 c. But the Apostleship was not determined by that Election but by the Lot which fell upon Matthias For Justus who was equally Sharer with him in that Act of the People was thereby no more an Apostle than he was before And perhaps the same way of Chusing by Lots might be us'd by St. John as Mr. Dodwell conjectures but was never Diss Cyp. p. 12. probably in Use after the Apostles Days though if it had been Necessary we cannot believe it would have been omitted in the following Ages The Seven Deacons we read were Elected by the People but receiv'd their Authorities and Office from the Apostles by imposition of Hands And these are I believe all
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ibid. Vid. Dodw. in Irenae Dis 1. Sect. XVII and that there were no Subordinate Presbyters to do the same thing by the Bishops Order in other Congregations within his Diocess And that there were more Congregations than one under the Bishop of Smyrna is evident from that Passâ—…ge of Ignatius in his Epistle to them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ig. ad Smyrn Let no man perform any of those things which belong to Publick Assemblies without the Bishop That Eucharist is to be thought valid which is either under him or at least which he allowed What had he to do to allow the Eucharist in Congregations Independent upon him and to talk of giving allowance to himself in his own is to great a Blunder for Ignatius to be charged with So that all the distinction here made is betwixt a Congregation under the Bishop viz. that where he was Personally present and another Congregation Assembled by his permission and allowance and must consequently imply that in the Church of Smyrna there were several Congregations under one Bishop what relates to Servants is nothing to this purpose in Ignatius whatever it was in our Authors Head Nor is the Second Alligation more regular or just than the former Antistitis manu in Tertullian for thence it came Originally by way of Mr. Baxter to our Author referring not to the Sacrament of the Lords Supper Aquam adituri ibidem sed aliquanto prius in Ecclesia sub Antistitâ—… manu contestamur nos Renunciare Diaibolo c. Eucharistiae Sacramentum in Tempore victus Omnibus mandatum a Domino etiam antelucanis Caetizbus nec de Aliorum manu quam praesidentium sumimus Tert. De Cor. Milit. c. 3. but to the Form of Renouncing the Devil c. which was preparatory to Baptism and the persons to be Baptized did it sub Antistitis manu for ex as this Man quotes it would have made it Non-sence Tertullian does indeed speak of the Lords Supper not to be Received nisi de Praesidentium manu But this will do our Author no Service The word Praesidentium including the Bench of Presbyters as well as the Bishop in Cathedra Vid. Pears Vind. Ignat. p. 2. c. 13. Assert 2. Dod. in Iren. Dis 1. Sect. VII Nor will the Passage out of Irenaeus which he so hastily misapplies if fully cited and understood afford any advantage to his cause Presbyters in that Father oftentimes denoting the Age rather than the Office of those Persons meant by it as divers Learned Men have already observed And in that Sence not only Presbyters but likewise Bishops Deacons and Laymen might be comprehended under that Title And accordingly Irenaeus distinguishes by divers Characters telling them what sort of Elders they were to hearken to Qua propter eis qui in Eccles sunt Pres obaudire oportet hiis qui Successionem habent ab Apostolis sicut ostendimus qui cum Episc Successione charisma veritatis Certum secundum placitum Patris acceperunt Iren. l. 4. c. 4 3. Iren. l. 4. c. 43 viz. First Eis qui in Ecclesia sunt those who are within the Pale of the Church Secondly Hiis qui Successionem habent ab Apostolis c. those who had the Succession from the Apostles and who together with the Succession in their Episcopal Charge did receive the sure Gift of Truth according to the Will of the Father Whence it is plain that Irenaeus in this place means Bishops only when he talks of the Apostles Successors And therefore our Authors Inference in behalf of Presbyters having their Succession from the Apostles as well as Bishops is out of Doors Irenaeus reckons up the Bishops of Rome in order as they Succeeded to Eleutherius then Bishop who was the Twelfth from the Apostles concluding Hac Ordinaâ—…ione Successione c. by this Ordination and Succession that Tradition which is in the Church from the Apostlâ—…s and the Preaching of the Truth is handed down to us From which it is plain that Succession in their days was more than bare Conformity to the Apostles Model in Government and Worship For they Succeedded the Apostles First In Power and Authority So Irenaeus quibus etiam ipsas Ecclesias Committebant quos Successores relinquebant suum ipsorum Locum Magisterii tradentes Secondly In Place So Linus was constituted the Successor of St. Peter and St. Paul at Rome and Irenaeus tells us further that they made him Bishop And therefore if his Successors afterwards mentioned kept up to the Apostles Model they must likewise derive their Office as he did from Persons invested wâ—…th the same Character and Consequently as Linus was Ordained by the Apostles who had that Episcopal Authority in themselves which they conferred upon him So the rest down to Eleutherius must be Ordained by Bishops And if so let our Author consider with himself whether his Notion or ours is nearer in all Points to the sense of those Times When I consider how nice and strict this Gentleman was in the Notion of Succession P. 19. 20 that he could not allow Two Bishops to Succeed One Apostle nor One to Succeed Two I cannot but wonder that in the Writing of 16 Pages his Head should grow so loose as to make it no more than Conformity to the Apostles Model in Government and Worship Surely if this be the truest Sence as the Gentleman affirms One Bishop may Succeed Two Apostles or One Apostle be Succeeded by Twenty Bishops without any such absurdity or Blunder as our Author cries out against in the fore-quoted Pages We all grant that for Persons wilfully to withdraw themselves from such particular Churches as are framed according to Scripture Rules and impose no new or needless Terms is to Act Schismatically because such willfull Separation when nâ—… cause is giuen cannot be without breach of Charity with our fellow Christians Page 37. Yes it may through the prejudices of Education or for want of understanding People may take that to be New which is very Old and that which is very Decent and Fit to be Imposed to be altogether Needless and withdraw themselves from particular Churches fram'd according to Scripture Rules when purely out of mistake they think them otherwise They may be led by Interest or won over by perswasion to a new Communion and yet have no hard thoughts of that Church or its Members which they left I cannot believe that every Dissenter at his first going off from the Church of England does immediately hate us I find several of 'em very Kind aâ—…d Affable Persons And yet if our Author has granted Right all their Charity though a very good and commendable thing cannot excuse 'em from the Guilt of acting schismatically And because our Author has granted this I shall grant likewise That Schism is frequently the Effect of Uncharitableness which perhaps was all that honest Mr. H. meant when he call d it formalis ratio People
juxta Graecam scilicet versionem respondet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hoc autem seu Gubernationis judicanâ—…ique munere inquit Theod. ornati sunt Septuag illi ut constaret populo divinum munus illos consecutos quaedam statim praedixâ—…runt Quod quidem receptior Magistrorum sensui per quam consonum Selden de Synod l. 2. c. 4. Prophets were inspired to be the Rulers of the Nation which I hope these Gentlemen will not as yet pretend to They were all acted by a constraining impulse which surely is not the case of our Nonconformists If the Spirit should so rest upon them that they could not forbear preaching he were abundantly worse than Joshua that should complain to my Lord Moses tho it were in the Camp or the stable Eldad and Medad were two of the Seventy designed for government I wish these Gentlemen could afford as good a proof of their Authority to preach They were left behind in the †Duo remanent Eld. Medad non imperii negligentes sed humilitate submissi dum se honore arbitrantur indignos Hieron Ep. ad Fabiol Camp and there the Spirit rested upon them which was a sufficient proof to Moses that God had admitted them to the government altho absent from the Tabernacle Especially considering that they were of them that were written so that he might not exclude them And therefore Mr. H. does impertinently alledge in this case 1 Cor. 14.32 That the Spirits of the Prophets are subject to the * Theod. quaerit Eldad Medad 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ipseque respondet eos fuisse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Prophets Neither can he find that any of them scrupled or refused that Religious impertinence of coming to the Tabernacle or to join with the rest in full communion which had been the most eminent circumstance in the whole affair to his purpose Nay lastly the business was chiefly secular and distinct from that which did more peculiarly belong to the Ecclesiastical body and therefore there could be nothing in this case to illustrate the business of Schism But why is this the only Text that occurs in the old Testament Persons of far greater learning and authority in the Church have made use of several others I hope you will say not impertinently when I give you their names That of Aaron and Miriam has been thought by some not wholly unfit to illustrate the nature of Schism they taking occasion from the infirmity of Moses to lessen his authority Ains in loc and to raise their own as Mr. Ainsworth intending no doubt to draw the people from him And therefore their sin is called Aemulation by Clemens Romanus and by him applyed to the latter Schism of the Corinthians as Schism is usually the child and companion of Aemulation which made the Corinthians Schismaticks and their Leaders to break communion with and to rebel against their lawful Presbyters as Aaron and Miriam did against Moses and the people of Israel themselves are taught subjection to the Priests and Levites lest God should do to them as he did to Miriam Deut. 24.8 9. inflict the same punishment for the like fault From which reasoning in St. Clemens it is plain he reckoned Schism in the Church to be like Sedition in the State something more than barely a breach of Charity Vid. opt l. 7. That of Jannes and Jambres was urged by the Donatists your Predecessors against the Catholicks who did not disown the way of arguing but only set the instances right by comparing Jannes and Jambres with the Donatiss and the Church with Moses whom they withstood And St. Paul did not think so slightly of this instance when he alledged it in his 2d. Epistle to Timothy against the Gnostic Schismaticks who led captive silly women laden with sins Vid. Hammonâ—… in loc Clem. Rom. p. 120. Optat. cont Parm. l. 6. p. 167. who did not only break charity but resisted the truth 2 Tim. 3.6 7 8. That of Korah Dathan and Abiram is thought fit to be used by St. Jude v. 11. concerning the Gnostic Separatists v. 9. By St. Clemens against the Corinthians By Optatus against the Donatists calling 'em their wretched Masters the dividers of the people the Masters of the first Schism the Schismatics viz. your Masters c. And yet to Mr. M. H. it does not occur These instances and many more of the like sort produced by St. Clemens and others as that of Cain and Abel Jacob and Esau Joseph and his Brethren Moses and the quarrelling Hebrew c. tho not all of them designed to run upon all four as the Vindicator speaks p. 40. Yet being alledged against Schismatics are intended some to shew the mischiefs of Aemulation and faction which are always the ingredients of Schism Others more nearly to signify the pernicious nature and heinous guilt of making parties in opposition to lawful authority or to contend with them that are truly our Superiors in the Church and by this way of arguing we may learn that according to the sentiments of those primitive worthies Schismatics are guilty of Aemulation which must necessarily be betwixt divided parties and Interests and consequently where there is Schism there is likewise a breach of Communion And secondly that it is in opposition to our Ecclesiastical Governors This must necessarily be the Sense of those who use this way of reasoning but neither of these things could be imputed to Eldad and Medad and therefore their notion of Schism could not be the same with Mr. M. H's and that is I suppose the reason why he neither makes use of their Instances nor they of his By his exception against those Texts which obliged the Jews to worship as he says only in one place viz. at Jerusalem Mod. Enq. p. 3. And to offer only upon that Altar a man will be apt to conclude him extreamly ignorant in the Religion of the Jews and the mystical reasonings upon which it was built To say nothing as yet of our own how far it has any relation to it He supposes first of all that the Jews were bound to worship at one place viz at Jerusalem and secondly that this obligation is vacated by that Gospel rule which wills us to pray every where Enq. p. 3. Which two things if they be true as he supposes then the Male Jews never prayed at all but when they came to Jerusalem Ibid. viz. 3 times a Year at the Feast of Unleavened bread the Feast of Weeks and the Feast of Tabernacles which methinks is a very scandalous account of the Jewish devotion but the whole assertion is false The Jews had their Proseuchae every where without the Cities their Synagogues within the Tabernacle was at Shiloh there was an Altar at Mount Ebal Samuel sacrificed at Mispeh and in Zuph in Gilgal and in Bethlehem Elijah at Mount Carmel They had their daily Sacrifices of the Sabbaths and of the new Moons Nor is it easy
the dignity of a Doctor And altho' some of those ancient Heretics could dispense with Fornication yet they dissuaded People from Marriage teaching them that it was of the Devil That we ought to own our Saviour in times of the greatest persecution is a great Gospel-Truth Luke 12.9 and yet the Corinthian Schismatics taught and practis'd otherwise which Doctrin and Practice St. Paul is likewise thought to oppose chap. 3. ver 11 c. and went so far as to partake of the Idol Sacrifices according to their worldly wisdom that they might escape persecution which made the Apostle argue that point cap. 8. and to determin so peremptorily and severely cap. 10.21 Ye cannot drink the Cup of the Lord and the Cup of Devils Ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's Table and the Table of Devils I might give you several other instances of the Gnostick heresy too rife at that time in the Corinthian Church but these surely are sufficient to prove against Mr. H. that they were not all agreed in the great Gospel-Truths Now Heresy includes Schism as it breaks the unity of the Faith one of the indispensible requisites to the unity of the Church And therefore the Corinthian Hereticks being Schismatics likewise i.e. disjointed and loose from the body of the Church the Apostle bids 'em be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 well-jointed and compacted in the Church Again in the same mind and in the same judgment i. e by uniting themselves to it both in affection and principles a work surely to be done while men are in this world and if it be not Mr. H. will find it too late when he enters into another I have only two things further to note under this particular First That the Apostle charging the Corinthians to be perfectly join'd together in the same mind and in the same judgment or opinion 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is strange how Mr. H. could observe that they were not obliged to think the same thing And secondly That this Text relating so plainly to difference in apprehension even according to his own exposition it is no less unaccountable to me why it might not as well have been reduced under that head as any one of those which he alledged to that purpose Secondly We must enquire into the Corinthians miscarriage which occasioned this caution which he tells us we have v. 11 12. There were contentions among them v. 11. Now the contention was about their Ministers as Mr. H. assures us p. 11. But I would ask him first of all was there no miscarriage antecedent to that contnetion Yes surely their heretical and wicked opinions which occasioned the antecedent caution viz. That ye all speak the same things In these the Schism was founded and they were probably the occasion of their ascribing themselves to Paul and Apollos and Cephas and Christ For where difference in opinion occasions debates among people not only the merits of the cause but likewise the original of each party and the means of knowing what they pretend to teach others are very frequently enquired into Thus it was in our Saviour's case when he taught something new and extraordinary beyond the common rate of their ordinary Scribes Whence hath this man this wisdom and these mighty works Is not this the Carpenters son Is not his Mother called Mary c And are not his Sisters all with us Whence then hath this man all these things Mat. 13.54 55 56. And there seems to be abundantly more occasion for the like enquiry in the case of the Corinthians as will appear if we consider the circumstances of those early times when this Epistle was written especially what means of knowledge the Corinthians then had and what proofs they might make use of to evince the truth or falshood of any Doctrine in debate They could not have the writings of the New Testament this Epistle being one of the first And it may reasonably be conjectured perhaps proved that of that little which was then written they had seen nothing For neither in their Epistle to St. Paul so far as St. Paul alludes to it neither in his to them is there the least intimation of any such thing And yet in the Epistles to the Thessalonians and the Gospel of St. Matthew which were of a prior date had they been in their hands they might have found the resolution of some of those cases which they put to the Apostle and therefore saved themselves the labour of that part of their appeal And as for the writings of the Old Testament there were two sorts of errors not to mention any more which were not easily confuted by their authority One was touching the Doctrine of the Resurrection which altho it might be proved from the Old Testament yet the Gnostics who denyed it may reasonably be supposed to have learnt from the Sadduces some of their first Masters how to evade those proofs and as for the other Judaizing Doctrines the Old Testament did so far seem to countenance them that it was not likely that every 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should be able to prove it otherwise And therefore it might become the skill and authority of the great Apostle himself to shew the contrary And as the Corinthians had not the assistance of the written rule either for information or proof in these cases so both must be derived from their Teachers either in word or writing For instruction besides what they had learned from our Saviour and his Apostles they had their Prophets and Evangelists continually among them who being endued with the Spirit were thereby qualified to instruct and educate the younger converts in the Doctrines of the Gospel and from these the Corinthians received their common Instructions But as the Orthodox Prophets had their true inspirations so the Heretical Teachers pretended to the same and as the former had their true miracles for the confirmation of their Doctrines so the latter had their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their lying wonders for the confirmation of theirs to deceive if it were possible the very elect And that which made it still more difficult for the ordinary Corinthians to judge betwixt them was because both parties continued in the same communion the Heretics not daring to go out i. e. to separate from the Church till a considerable time after this when many of the Apostles were dead Now where both sides were equal in order pretended to the same inspirations the same miracles and lived in the same communion the proof of each Doctrine must depend upon the credit and authority of those persons from whom it was derived If from Christ it was the greatest if from the Apostles it was next if from one of the first Converts well learned in the Christian doctrines highly approved and dignified by the Apostles as Apollos was it was of the last great authority Thus St. Paul recommends the authority of the houshold of Stephanas as being the most early Converts in that Region
may be collected from the next verse out of countenance and ashamed 'T is pretty to see Mr. H. bringing in his little things here again as tho Heresies v. 10. to violate the pious design of a feast of Charity v. 20. to be drunken themselves and starve the Poor v. 21. to expose their poverty and put them out of countenance and all this in the Church at their Agapae or feasts of charity were to pass under the title of little things If there had been any quarrels among 'em these according to the Apostle must have been the occasions which surely cannot be little things in the opinion of any man who has not himself a very large Conscience The reason why the Apostle bids them tarry one for another ver 33. was that they might have communion by eating together and not according to their rude and irregular practice take every one before other his own Supper But it is unreasonable to conclude That they quarrelled about the time of their meeting For altho' the time were fully agreed on by every mans consent yet unless all Clocks c. went alike in those days and all mens speed were equal some would come sooner and others later as well as they do now and the first might devour what they themselves brought before such times as the rest could be there to partake with them I shall observe only two things more before I pass to the next Scripture 1. That Mr. H. in his account of this very ingeniously passes over the next and immediate Context ver 21. For there must be also heresies among you that they which are approved may be made manifest among you Now suppose that any man should infer hence that the Schism mentioned ver 20. was occasioned by their Heresies that their Divisions were only into Sects and Parties some being orthodox and some otherwise as it is among us and that hence proceeded the other irregular practices I would fain know what he has to say to the contrary And 2dly It may perhaps try the wit of Mr. H. and his Brethren to give a clear account how St. Paul's reasonings ver 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 and 32 can any way quadrate or be reconciled to his Notion And yet they must be all brought in or else the 33d verse quoted and urg'd by him will bear no manner of relation to the 18th which he designs it to interpret The last place Mr. H. mentions is 1 Cor. 12.25 That there be no Schism in the body I shall pass over his Remarks p. 14. it being sufficient for us that he is pleased to acknowledge pag. 15. that to be Schism which breaks or stockens the bond by which the members are knit together which thing is so notoriously done by separation and breach of communion that whoever is guilty of that may according to Mr. H's Assertion justly be charged with Schism That Bond he tells us is not an Act of Uniformity neither say I is the obligation of that Bond taken away by an Act of Indulgence And therefore notwithstanding the late Act nay tho' we should have no Act of Vniformity yet all this would not excuse Mr. H. and his Vindicator from being Schismatics according to his own Argument True Love and Charity in point of Affection as Mr. H. assures us is the only Bond by which Christians are knit together And Schism is that which breaks that Bond. That Schism does usually break Charity no man will deny Mr. H. and his Party are sufficient instances of this truth as those persons who have the zeal and courage to oppose their Faction do always find when ever they fall into their hands And that Love and Charity is likewise a means to prevent Schisms as it always pays a just deference to all spiritual Governors cools and abates the violence of Faction makes People humble obedient and docible and causes all to endeavor after peace and unity we do readily acknowledge and for this reason both the Apostles and others have all along in their discourses about Schism pressed men to Charity as a necessary means to bring them over to conformity and unity with a sound and orthodox Church But to infer hence That Charity in point of Affection is the only Bond by which Christians are knit together and that Schism consequently is nothing else but Vncharitableness are Positions only fit for Mr. H. to assert and the Vindicator to justify St. Paul does not say as Mr. H. falsly quotes him That it is the unity of the Spirit that is the bond of peace Eph. 4.3 but exhorts the Ephesians to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace so that the bond of peace must needs be something more than barely the unity of the Spirit And by the unity of the Spirit more is certainly to be understood than only Charity as appears by the References made to it in the Context ver 4.7 11 c. which thorowly considered makes this Text little or nothing to Mr. H's purpose And withal it is to be remembred that the Apostle insists upon several other tyes and obligations whereby Christians are knit together besides Charity viz. they are incorporated into one society one body as well as animated by one spirit ver 4. united in one hope of their blessed calling ibid. united as Subjects to the same Lord as Professors of one and the same Faith initiated into the same Mysteries and Partners in the same Covenant by one and the same Baptism and united by our union and communion with the orthodox Governors and Pastors of the Church which St. Paul tells us were given us for the perfecting of the Saints or according to the Original 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the compacting or knitting together of the Saints ver 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the edifying or building up of the body of Christ till we all come in the unity of the faith c. unto a perfect man c. that we henceforth be no more Children tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of Doctrine by the slight of men and cunning craftiness whereby they lie in wait to deceive ver 13 14. From all which it appears that Mr. H. is for one Doctrine and St. Paul for another and therefore having laid both opinions before the Reader I freely leave it to his own choice whether of the two he will follow Charity is certainly the bond of perfectness but what is meant by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Col. 3.14 Mr. H. has not informed us which surely he ought to have done before he had made any inference from these words whether 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies mercifulness Hammond in loc as it does Luke 6.36 or perfectness in all the duties of Christianity Charity may either way be the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or bond of it for Charity is a very large and comprehensive virtue The Apostle tells us it is the fulfilling
ever liv'd in the world were expresly against him Leg. 12. Tab. Separatim nemo habessit Deos neve novos neve advenas nisi publice adscitos privatim colunto constrâ—…cta à Patribus delubra habento Ritus Familiae Patriaeque servanto So that I know no Patron either Christian or Heathen the Gentleman has to appeal to unless it be his own scattered Party or some of his Friends the New Whigg Atheists And as for their Judgment and Approbation much good may it do him I know no Man of ours that envies his happiness There is a wonderful vein of Argument not to say Discretion in his management of T. W.'s Honours pag. 7. If he supposes any weakness in himself he does not pretend to be infallible Suppose he makes but a slip in style which he hopes a Friend will pardon the performance must necessarily be all vicious But on the contrary if he allows a Dissenter the least grain of Christian temper humility or consideration so as not to be totally divested of all three it is enough to saint him he needs trouble himself no further for his condition is very hopeful and cannot be desperate pag. 8. But above all the Address to the Sceptic does most afflict him especially that T. W. should suppose any Sceptic to be obstinate pag. 9. Now for my part I cannot perceive that ever he supposed any such thing his words are these If thou be Sceptical a slighter of our Religion obstinate and perverse a despiser and reviler of the Clergy By which it is plain T. W. intended four several Characters of those who are Enemies to the Church now there is no necessity that they should all be united in the same person but if they are all found among the members of the same Faction as certainly they are it is abundantly sufficient to acquit the Alderman However the witty Vindicator by changing Sceptical into Sceptic and putting obstinate to it takes care to make Nonsense where otherwise it is not to be found This being a part of the Ingenuity of these Gentlemen to make Faults where they cannot find them and to raise Blunders out of their own imagination and then confute them which surely is the worst tho' one of the easiest ways of arguing that a man can chuse He is mightily offended with the Alderman for making the Ninth Article of the Apostles Creed the Standard whereby to discover Schism as if it were a most heinous Crime no less than declining the Authority of Scripture to make use of it The profession of that Creed has been the badge and symbol of all orthodox Christians for many past Centuries which certainly it would not have been if they had not all believed it to be agreeable to the Scriprure And unless these Gentlemen have a mind to extinguish all the former sentiments of the Christian Church that they may the better impose upon the World what ever Notions they please I know no reason why it should now be laid aside 'T is plain T. W. never intended to rival the Scripture with this Article for he goes on immediately to explain it by the sacred Text tho in this Case he cannot be so happy as to please our peevish Author He quarrels with him likewise about the Origination of the Catholic Church and is angry that he does not date it from the Creation of Angels or from the Beginning of the Jewish Church As if the Gentleman had never heard of the distinctions betwixt the Church Visible and Mystical Jewish and Christian or some body or other had put it into his head that the Angels are Christian it being the Catholic Church under that denomination only that T. W. spoke of When our Saviour uttered those words Mat. 16.18 Thou art Peter and upon this Rock I will build my Church I desire to know of the Vindicator whether he did not speak of the Church de futuro and as yet unbuilt And when St. Luke says And the Lord added to the Church daily such as should be saved whether he did not speak of it as already begun so that the Christian Church must have its beginning betwixt the time of that first saying to St. Peter and that other in St. Luke If the Gentleman will try his Chronology and assign us the year and day we shall gladly hear him but if he will still derive its Epocha from the Creation of Angels we are ready to assert the contrary In the mean time he ought to be a little sparing in his Reflections upon T. W. for if he were a Dunce and a Blockhead or a ridiculous Trifler for this account of the Origination of the Catholic Christian Church both * Probantibus actis Apostolorum descensum Spiritus Sancti quam Scripturam qui non recipiunt nec Spiritus Sancti esse possunt Qui necdum Spiritum possint agnoscere discentibus missum sed nec ecclesiam defendere qui quando quibus incunabulis institutum est Hoc corpus probare non habent Tertull. de Prae. cap. 22. Tertullian and St. Jerome †Acta Apostolorum nudam quidem sonare videntur Historiam nascentis Ecclesiae infantiam â—…xere Hieron Ep. 103. not to say our Saviour and St. Luke must equally be comprehended in the same charge Nay the Vindicator himself grants in the next Paragraph that the Apostles and Disciples were the Church without either Jews or Angels And therefore if T. W. were a Fool for passing them by I hope the Gentleman will not disdain to bear him company He is mightily troubled pag. 11. about the admission of Church-Members that it cannot be done barely upon their profession of Faith without complying with some significant Rites that are alien to Scripture-Rules If he had but told us plainly what he had meant I could have given a more direct Answer in the mean time let him know that we decline the Charge The Disciples and Believers submitted to the authority of the Apostles in things indifferent And if our English Dissenters would be as just to their Successors according to the rules and examples recorded in Scripture no body would require more from ' em As for the saying of the Bishop of Worcester which I suppose he durst not quote because he was conscious to himself that it was nothing to his purpose it concerns the Papists only and for what belongs to us I refer him to many other excellent sayings of the aforesaid Bishop in his Unreasonableness of Separation In the next paragraph he complains that Christianity does not make a greater progress in the world and immediately charges the failure upon needless ceremonies and want of worth in the managers Now whether this be so or not he may easily try if he will either send Mr. H. or go himself for I do not question but he will allow both to be exceedingly well qualified and give a call to the unconverted Let 'em try the Emperor of China or the Cham of
this Case the Line would be right enough and all that can be said is That there was One Vsurper in the Line of Jurisdiction who never was within the Line of Order and consequently could make no intercision in it And perhaps to prevent any Irregularity in the Succession of that Order the Apostles gave the Example and the Church enjoyn'd That a Bishop should be ordain'd by Three at least Apâ—…st c. 1. Con. Nican c. 4. Con. Areâ—… c. 21. Con. Laodic c. 12. Con. Paris 1. c. 6 c. and likewise that he should be Constituted with the Approbation of his Metropolitan and Com-Provincials which practices were certainly a very great security to the Right Succession it being not very likely That all the Bishops of a Province should be so extreamly careless to suffer an irregular Ordination and the Persons concern'd to Consecrate all void of that Character which they pretended to bestow After all That ever any Abbot that was no Bishop did ordain Bishops I do utterly deny Adamnanuâ—… in his Life of Columba Adamn Vit. Col. Vsh Primorâ—… makes mention of a Bishop in the Abby of Hy and that there was always one residing there is confirmed by Bishop Vsher out of the Vlsleâ—… Annals And perhaps the Bishop of Dâ—…nkeld as the Learned Bishop of St. Asaph conjectures joyn'd in the Consecration of Bishop Aldan Finan Bp. of St. Asaph of â—…h Gov. p. 102. and Colman had the like Ordination But Tuda the next in Succession was ordain'd a Bishop among the South Scots in Ireland So that should we allow his Instance true viz. That Aâ—…dan Finan and Colman were ordained by the Abbot yet that Succession at Lindisfarn in all likelihood fail'd in Colman and the Line of Order was right in Tuda and consequently his Marginal Instance is nothing to the purpose an Instance that has been frequently urg'd by the Nonconformists against Episcopacy and as often confuted from the most Authentick History of those Times by divers Learned Men Vind. C. E. cap. 9. Vind. Ignat. par 1. c. 10. Orig. Brit. Ch. Gov. c. 5. Barbos Past p. 2. All. 3. Num. 3.4 c. Maur. de Alz. de Prac. Episc Dig. p. 2. c. 5. Num. 6 7 8 9. Aquin. Sup. q. 38. ar 1. Res ad ter Vid. Victor in Sum. Num. 216. Sect. de Sac. Ord. Non facile credeâ—…em Victor in sum Num. 237. quem seq Vivald in Candel aureo p. 1. tit de Sacram. Ordin Num. 17. In fine asserenti se vidisse quandam Bullam Papae concedentem facultatem sacerdoti conferendi Diac. Sub. Diac. Barbos Past p. 2. Al. 3. N. 4. Ap. c. 67. Nicaen c. 19. Con. C. P. c. 4 Bishop Bramhâ—…ll Bishop Pearson the present Bishop of Worcester and St. Asaph and Mr. Dodwell have so fully Answer'd this business of Hy that a Man would wonder at the Confidence of this Gent. that he should still hope to impose the same Mistake upon the World Nor does the Church of Rome allow that an Abbot who is no Bishop should Consecrate a Bishop They are so far from allowing it that their Canonists generally declare that the Pope himself cannot impower any Presbyter to Ordain so much as a Deacon An Abbot who has Jus Mitrae Bacuâ—… a Cardinal or an Ordinary Presbyter by Commission from the Pope may confer the lesser Orders but not the greater or those which are called Sacred viz. those of Bishop Priest and Deacon nay even as to the lesser Thomas Aquinas Joh. Major and Paludanus Affirm that it is safer to receive the Order of Sub-Deacon from another than from such a priviledged Presbyter And altho Anguianus and some few more are of opinion that the Pope might Impower a Presbyter to confer the Higer Orders yet it never was the allowed practice of that Church And I challenge him to produce so much as one instance of any Abb t that was no Bishop who ever Consecrated a Bishop As for Sub-Deacons and such people who are sometimes Ordainâ—…d by Abbots the Gentileman knows well enough we have no occasion for 'em in England and therefore the Succession of our Bishops may be just and regular notwithstanding this first Case As to the Second viz. Whether this line of Ordina ion may be continued in a Schismatical Church We Answer 1st That such was the care of the Primitive Church so great a regard they had to a right Succâ—…ssion that they who thought the Ordination of certain Hereticks void such as the Paâ—…lianists and Montanists 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. decreed 'em to be Ordained by a Catholick Bishop And it is likewise determin'd by the first Council of Constantinople concerning the Ordinations made by Maximus Cymicus that they are all null they neither allowing him to be a Bishop not those Ordained by him to enjoy any Function among the Clergy And in the Roman Church Bâ—â—n Tâ—m 9. p. 2â—4 Pâ—â—tin dâ— Vâ— Pont. p. 22.4 Contra â—â—ephanum III. alâ—s IV. Mabill in Ordiâ— Rom. Com. p. cxix particularly those ordain'd by Constantine the Lay-Invader of the Papal Chair were by a Council under Stephen the Third or Fourth to return to their former Orders unless they were in great Esteem with the People and in that Case they were to be re-ordain'd by the Church and for fear of laying the Foundations of a future Schism it was further decreed That none of 'em should be promoted to any higher degrees By these and many other Instances it is plain what Care the Church has taken to re-ordain or utterly silence those whose Orders they thought void And lest any such persons should creep into strange places and there invade that Office to which they had no Right No Man either of the Clergy or Laity Ap. 〈◊〉 12. con 〈◊〉 30 con 〈◊〉 c. 33. 〈…〉 C. 〈◊〉 c. 7. con 〈◊〉 c. 12. con Elizbeâ—â— c. 51. was to hold Communion with 'em under pain of incurring the Ecclesiastical Censures No Clergy Man was to go abroad without Commendatory Letters no bishop to be ordain'd without the Knowledge and Consent of his Metropolitan and the Neighbouring Bishops No Heretick to be admitted into Orders and if ordain'd to be depos'd No Man to ordain in another's Province By which and seveâ—â—l other Canons it became extreamly difficult for any such Hereticks or Schismaticks whose Orders they thought void to make any considerable intercision in the Line of Succession But I can see no Reason why the Line of Ordination may not pass through a Schismatical Church For although by Schism People are out of the Church and while they continue so cannot enjoy the benefit either of Ordination or Sacraments yet to say That â—â—â—h are absolutely destroy'd and nullify'd so that a â—â—â—â—…matick lâ—â—â— the Characters and can neither be a Christian 〈…〉 i. e. not the Subject of Apostolical Power 'till he be 〈◊〉 â—â—â— baptiz'd and ordain'd is an Assertion beyond all that I câ—â—â—…d ever yet meet with The
talk of Lewd and Extravagan Caresses between Ambitious Princes and Aspiring Churchmen Vind. p. 28. while those of his own Party are extant and may be seen Though it should be granted That Ceremonies have no Moral Goodness in them as he says is acknowledged p 28. yet Decency has which we think will not easily be preserv'd without them and that it is fit they should be chosen and impos'd by the Authority and Wisdom of Superiours For if otherwise Religious Offices were to be perform'd according to the Opinion and Will of every Rude and Phantastical Person we see by the Practice of Conventicles where that Liberty is taken how awkardly they would be manag'd to the great Scandal and Offence of the more Ingenious and Sober People Nor is it easilie to be imagined That God Almighty should be better pleas'd with the Rudeness of their Worship than with the Decency of ours Especially considering That besides the Practice of the Church in all Ages we have the Injunction of the Apostle That all things be done decently and are to Worship God with our Bodies as well as with our Souls which are God's As to the Ceremonies of our Church in particular they are so few and easie that he must certainly be a Man of more than ordinary Peevishness or less than ordinary Sence that can take 'em for Incumbrances upon the Worship of God The Vindicator himself upon Second Thoughts will not under pretence of Spirituality Vind. p. 38. reject the Natural Decorum of an Action in the Worship of God which I am very glad to hear And if he will but do One Thing more viz. allow the Bishops and Clergy in Convocation to be fitter Judges of that Decorum than every mean and half-witted Pastor there would be very little more requir'd from him I am confident when this is done that people will be better reconcil'd to our Ceremonies than to suffer themselves to be Excommunicated and Damn'd for not complying with them as the Vindicator talks page 28. In the mean time if any Man be so stiff and peevish or malicious against the Church as to deprave her Ceremonies and so far despises her Jurisdiction and Government that he will not vouchssafe an Appearance to the most Legal Summons nor yield to the most Reasonable and Just Monitions in that Case she does pursue our Saviour's Rule He that neglects to hear the Church we think ought to be reckon'd as an Heathen Man and a Publican or in the Language of the UNITED MINISTERS When all due Means for the reducing him prove ineffectual Heads of Agreement Tit. 3. Sect. 4. he having hereby cut himself off from the Church's Communion the Church may justly esteem and declare it self discharg'd of any further Inspection over him And in this practice the mildest Protestant Churches agree with us Eccles Dis of the Reform Churches of France transl into Eng. 1642. The Reformed Churches of France having us'd a Coercive Power over their inferiour Members Those that should stir up Strife or Contention to disâ—…oyn or break the Vnion of their Church concerning some Point of their Doctrine or Discipline or about the Method Matter or Stile of the Catechism though of Humane Composition or the Administration of the Sacraments Publick Prayers c. shall be censur'd as Rebellious Persons And in case they will not renounce their Errors then they are to be cut off from the Church If the Pastor or Elder do it he shall presently be suspended from his Charge and Imployment and be proceeded against at the next Ecclesiastical Synod If he teaches False Doctrine and persists after Admonition If he is not obedient to the Admonition of the Consistory or Convicted of Heresie Schism or Rebellion against Ecclesiastical Order he is to be depos'd If he thrusts himself into the Ministry where there is pure preaching already and will not deâ—…it when warn'd of it he is to be quite cut off and proceeded against as the Synod shall think fit And the same Course is to be taken with all his Followers And at the End of that Book we are told That this Order and Discipline had been resolv'd and concluded on by no less than Twenty Seven National Synods from 1559 to 1637 c. Now if these Reformed Churches of France were not to be Censur'd as Uncharitable for the Establishment and Exercise of this Discipline I know no Reason why ours should lie under that imputation In the next Paragraph he finds fault with T. W's Notion of of the Communion of Saints but gives none of his own whether for fear lest he should mistake or lest his own Party should be condemn'd by it I shall not now enquire It is certainly a nice Point for Separatists to manage It being hard for those that neither Pray with nor receive the Sacraments nor live under the Government of any Church to Demonstrate plainly how they hold Communion with all as this Vindicator confidently pretends However though he could establish nothing himself yet that he may do something towards finding fault with T. W. he proceeds to examine his aggregate description of the Communion of Saints which he tells you consists of these things First A firm belief of all the Articles of Faith contain'd in the Apostolical Nicene and Athanasian Creeds Now this mightily offends him 1st Because it was not said in Scripture as if he that believes those Creeds did not believe Scripture Those Creeds tho of human composition Symbolum Apost exigi coepit ubi variae Haereses in Ecclesiam irruperant Voss de tribus Symb. Dis 1. c. 14. yet are according to Scripture and contain the Faith into which Christians are Baptized They are the Symbola wherein the Orthodox of all Countreys agree and whereby they have distinguished themselves in several Ages from those Hereticks which did not assent to them The two former have been generally received and admitted into the Liturgies of the Eastern and Western Churches and therefore it is strange how the Vindicator can suppose that the Greek and other Eastern Churches are shut out by this condition of Communion 'T is true in the Article of the Procession they objected against the Latins the addition of Filioque in the Nicene or Constantinopolitan Creed and perhaps not untruly considering that in the old Ordo Romanus published by Hittorpius wherein that Creed is ordered to be used in both Languages these words tho in the Latine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 qui ex patre filioque procedit qui cum patre filio simul adoratur Hittorp Ord. Rom. de Div. Offic. p. 39. Ed. Col. 1568. Vide Voss de tribus 9. symbol Diss 3 c. 20. c. yet are omitted in the Greek But nevertheless they us'd the Creed and from them it came Originally into the Latine Church And as to that which we receive under the Name of Athanasius those among the Greeks who thought it to be his had always a very great veneration